View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Personas |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus. | In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most damage. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 2-8 | 3-8 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RationaleKnowledgeDecision | FailureResilienceRisk | SensemakingDecisionRationale |